Justice Agencies and the Internet

Opening Keynote: The Internet and Criminal Justice
Judge Thomas Cecil
November 4 -5, 1997 Hyatt Regency San Francisco Airport

Welcome Remarks:
Good Morning, It is a great pleasure to be here. I want to thank you for this chance to talk with you about the internet opportunities for Criminal Justice Agencies. In addition, I'd like to share with you some of the technological activities that are going on in the court system and elsewhere along with a vision of what the future holds, not only for law enforcement, but for the criminal justice enterprise as a whole.

Historical Perspective:
History is the world's best teacher. A combined sense of history and vision for the future serves us well in addressing the challenges ahead for Law Enforcement Leaders. The world as we know and understand it is undergoing a dramatic transformation.

Imagine the year was 1946, and I came to talk about a brand new medium that was going to change the world and give creative individuals an almost unlimited forum for expression. It was going to be the coolest thing since the Gutenberg printing press. A new wave of communication would be born. Of course I'd be talking about television.

Now we're going through another dramatic media shift. But this isn't about whether or not Justice Agencies should have a web page. It's about whether or not Justice Agencies want to play by a new set of rules that's creating a new economy , a new culture and radically new expectations.

Like the television, the Internet is a tidal wave. It will wash over Justice Agencies and many others, drowning those who don't learn to swim in its waves. Consequently, public agencies and private companies must incorporate the Internet in their plans. Failing to do so will substantially increase the likelihood of failure.

Bill Gates said in August of 1995, " The surging popularity of the communications network called the Internet is the most important single development in the computer industry since the IBM PC was introduced in 1981. " It is even more important than the advent of the graphical user interface, the use of on-screen pictures and fonts. If you looked around Microsoft and said, "What's the theme that's driving innovation here?" you would discover it is the Internet.

Television, print and radio share the characteristics of broadcast media. Messages are one-way, broadcast indiscriminately to a wide audience. In contrast, the Internet is a two-way communication medium. And, the "audience" is an individual user either searching out sources directly for specific information or engaging with communities of common interest. Whereas the broadcast media is highly regulated with gatekeepers, on the Internet, anyone can be a publisher or broadcaster. The broadcast media acts as a filter, choosing what material will be broadcast within regulatory boundaries. On the Internet, a web site provides a direct two-way link to its particular user, whether it's electronic data interchange or stamp collecting from a "mom and pop" shop.

The Internet changes the way we distribute information in a fundamental way that makes it highly participatory.

What The Near Future Holds
Fifteen years ago, managers responsible for equipment purchases and repair worked on 7 to 10 year replacement cycles. A decade ago, the 5-year cycle was the model. In recent years, the "long term" plan for technology equipment has decreased to a mere three years.

The push to be cutting edge can be a fierce master. And, frankly, especially for those in the public sector, being cutting edge is an impossibility when you recognize that technology is moving so fast that (according to one notable expert) you becomes outdated every 17 days.

Those of your intimately familiar with technology have probably all experienced being approached by a friend or neighbor. You have been identified as a tech-nerd, someone with all the answers, especially in terms of helping this person select his/her personal computer, or a system for their child. Most of these inquisitors, at least from my experience, look the same: They are the "deer in the headlights" folks. They haven't a clue. They have ventured into the major electronic stores and been bombarded with words, literature and acronyms concerning products or concepts more foreign than anything previously experienced. They are shell-shocked. They have been paralyzed into a state of inaction. And you are their salvation. You, they hope, speak plain English, not techno-talk.

But, despite their fears and frustrations, they all want to be cutting edge. They live in fear of not having the best. And, they want your assurance that when they buy Brand X, they won't be laughed at and ridiculed.

In government, we have not learned the realities of the marketplace. When's the last time any governmental agency was capable of making a significant decision, much less moving in significant directions in anything close to 17 days. The answer obviously, is that we cannot. Our beaurocratic structures simply don't lend themselves to taking such quick action. Moreover, the taxpayers undoubtedly expect us to reflect more thoroughly on major purchases than a 17-day window of time provides. But the good news is, we don't have to be cutting edge. While we may still fear being scoffed at (or audited), we understand that even "old" technology may be new to us, and that all of it potentially offers us vast opportunities and challenges. In our examination of emerging technologies, we are given the chance to totally reexamine and redesign the ways in which we do business.

We live in a technology-rich environment. Our task is to properly harvest what's out there, and to do so in a cooperative and mutually-beneficial fashion, cutting edge or not. We are committed to making progress - NOW!

Today your computer or television screen (WebTV) can display pictures of government buildings, and you can click on police headquarters to see crime statistics, or the courthouse to see the local rules of court.

Oracle has recently come up with a relatively inexpensive method on accessing the net, perhaps laying to rest the oft-stated fear of us becoming an information rich versus information poor society.

Over the next two days we will learn more about the technologies which are making this happen and how to implement and manage them.

Imagine a few years ahead where the judiciary and the entire justice enterprise are paperless and, in many respects, wireless. Using a gigabit Internet network transferring data back and forth through secure socket layers. Satellite uplinks transfer data around the world and back. Appropriate electronic access is granted to the public through computers, video Internet phones, PC wallets and Internet televisions.

(The following is extracted from "Using Technology to Improve the Justice System" by Justice G. Nicholson)

Pleading and briefing are conducted electronically, in both trial and appellate courts at the federal, state, and local levels. Many civil and criminal trial court proceedings are conducted by telepresence. For law enforcement, the day has come when officers required to testify in court can do so from their home or place of work. No longer are officers tied up in the court house for endless hours, languishing, waiting for the lawyers, clients, or judges to appear. Telepresence will also be involved with the many oral arguments in the California Supreme Court and in the appellate courts, state and federal. Writs and appeals are more orderly and heard more quickly because trial and appellate courts electronically exchange files and exhibits. Many of the glitches which, for so long, plagued intra- and inter- court transactions, are gone because all justice enterprise records are digital and carefully monitored. Career criminals no longer escape appropriate punishment through systemic record tracking delays.

Lawyers are online with one another and with the courts. Many discovery procedures occur electronically, according to judicially sanctioned protocols. Law libraries and the law itself are electronically and economically accessible to everyone because federal and state judiciaries, along with Congress and state legislatures, long ago acted together and in the public interest to govern their data, cases and statutes.

Sight, hearing and mobility impaired people are able to obtain legal advice and to participate more fully in legal and judicial proceedings, at all levels, through electronic multimedia tools and telecommunications. Justice is electronically multilingual. Judges design and utilize expert systems and artificial intelligence to assist in judicial research and decision-making, without jeopardizing the human touch or diminishing professional accountability.

Hopefully, crime is greatly reduced in and about court facilities throughout California and the nation. Schools, parks and playgrounds are safer and more peaceful. Career criminals are punished appropriately. Crime victims are universally accorded the respect and dignity due them. If nothing else, the victims are aware of the court's processes and calendars and able to provide their statutorily protected input.

In this state, like most, a stated goal of sentencing those convicted of crime is to punish the individual. It has often been noted that the longer one waits to be punished, the less likely it is that the defendant will be able to relate the punishment to the criminal act previously committed. This philosophy has been applied to the home setting, in the handling of children who have misbehaved. Similarly, delays in having cases investigated, solved, filed, tried and appealed create significant costs to the public and foster mass dissatisfaction with the criminal justice enterprise. That dissatisfaction impacts line officers in their dealings with the public, it influences the general public's perception of all lawyers, even those who don't practice criminal law or appear in court; and it certainly impacts the public's perception of the integrity of the court.

The Challenge Ahead in California: The Tower of Babel
Honorable Ronald M. George, Chief Justice of California, To a joint session of The California Legislature, Sacramento, California, on January 14, 1997.

ONE AREA THAT CLEARLY NEEDS IMPROVEMENT IS INFORMATION MANAGEMENT. THE COURTS UTILIZE AN INCOMPATIBLE, INSUFFICIENT MIX OF DATA PROCESSING AND HAND-COLLECTED INFORMATION SYSTEMS. DISCORDANT AND TOO OFTEN NON-EXISTENT CAPABILITIES MAKE IT DIFFICULT TO COLLECT AND MANAGE THE INFORMATION THAT ALL THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT NEED IN ORDER TO ACCURATELY PLAN FOR THE FUTURE OF THE COURTS — OR TO ASSESS THE IMPACT OF CHANGES ONCE MADE.

AFTER COMPLETING A REVIEW OF AUTOMATION SYSTEMS USED IN COURTS ACROSS THE COUNTRY AS WELL AS IN CALIFORNIA, THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL'S ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY HAS LAID OUT A PLAN TO BRING THE COURTS INTO THE 20TH AND 21ST CENTURIES. LOCAL COUNTY PLANS HAVE BEEN COMPLETED DURING THE PAST YEAR. DATA STANDARDS WILL BE ADOPTED THIS SUMMER. IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT WE SEIZE THE OPPORTUNITY NOW TO ADVANCE IN THIS AREA. IF WE DO NOT, OUR COURTS WILL BE LOCKED IN A TOWER OF BABEL, UNABLE TO EFFECTIVELY LEARN FROM OR COMMUNICATE WITH ONE ANOTHER — OR TO PROVIDE THE LEGISLATIVE AND EXECUTIVE BRANCHES AND THE PUBLIC WITH COMPLETE AND UP-TO-DATE INFORMATION CONCERNING THE OPERATIONS OF OUR COURTS AND THEIR CASELOADS.

Customization is replacing standardization; just-in-time production is replacing synchronization; flat organization charts are replacing hierarchy; decentralization is replacing centralization. The Internet is replacing a locked tower of Babel. The world is embracing the internet and all its promise.

California steps toward the future to unlock the tower

California has taken steps toward cooperation and coordination in the field of technology within the branches of government. Governor Wilson issued an executive order in 1992, establishing the Multi-Agency Information Authority, an administrative structure for more effective sharing of technology within the executive branch. The legislative branch has deployed technology to assist the legislators and to inform and educate the public, through web-based offerings for virtually all its daily work and work products. The judicial branch, although with fits and starts, has begun to aggressively employ technology to accomplish its core functions.

Our Administrative Office of the Courts now has a home page, containing timely and relevant information for court users. Many individual courts, including both the trial and appellate level, have developed their own home pages. Through the net, many of the commonly-asked questions can be provided without the use of either court staff or travel time to court by our citizens. Information as simple as providing directions to the court house, to the posting of court calendars and publicizing local rules of court can be found on our web pages. The internet is being deployed by the judiciary and we have only touched the surface.

The challenge of the future is to coordinate and cooperate among the branches, even as the technology is improved within each branch. Rule 1033 of the California Rules of Court establishes the Court Technology Advisory Committee, referenced a few moments ago in the quote from Chief Justice George. Its membership includes members of the judicial branch along with a representative from each House of the Legislature, the state's Chief Information Officer, court administrators and a representative of the State Bar. Its charge is to observe the principle of inclusiveness in implementing technology within the courts and cooperating with the other branches of government and the public.

In Sacramento, a California Intergovernmental Coordinating Council has been formed to foster and facilitate further cooperation in the use of technology. This council will employ three tiers of coordination, from the highest policymaking level of leaders in the branches of government at both state and local levels to the officials who would implement the policy to the organizations and employees who would carry out the work under official direction.

The goal is to forge workable governance from the dispersed powers of the branches of government at all levels. "While the Constitution diffuses power the better to secure liberty, it also contemplates that practice will integrate the dispersed powers into a workable government. It enjoins upon its branches separateness but interdependence, autonomy but reciprocity." (Youngston Sheet & Sawyer (1952) 343 U.S. 579, 635, Jackson, J. concurring)

See "Using Technology to Improve the Justice System," California County, May/June 1994.

Today's Use of Technology in the Core Functions of the Judiciary
As is inevitable, courts around the country have begun to adopt technology to accomplish their core functions. Some of this adoption is manifested in written opinions.

In Pennsylvania, a trial court considering child abuse charges against a day care provider admitted testimony of the children by videotape, which was made outside the presence of the jury and the defendant. Even though the trial court found good cause for following this procedure, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the ensuing convictions, concluding that the state constitution required accusers to confront the accused face to face. (Commonwealth v. Louden (1994) 638 A.2d 953.)

Under similar circumstances of fear on the part of abused children to face their molesters, but in a dependency proceeding rather than a criminal proceeding, a California court found use of one-way closed-circuit television to take testimony of the children outside the presence of their parents was permissible. (In re Amber S. (1993) 15 Cal. App. 4th 1260.)

The Fourth Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals has concluded that videoconferencing can be used to conduct a commitment hearing. In that case, the government sought to commit the respondent involuntarily. The hearing on the government's petition was held in two places simultaneously The judge, government lawyer, and court reporter were in court, and the respondent, his attorney, and the principal witness were in a room at the mental health facility. The appellate court found this procedure did not violate the respondent's due process rights. (United States v. Baker (1995) 45 F.3d 837.)

Finally, as we witnessed just several months ago, technology can save significant money. When the alleged Unibomber was scheduled to be arraigned in a New Jersey federal court, did we incur the expense and danger of transporting him from the Sacramento County jail facilities? No, his appearance was arranged through the cooperation of the Sacramento County Public Defender's access to a video link, working in conjunction with the federal authorities. He appeared "remotely" without the pitfalls and expense of moving him across the country.

These are just a few ways the courts have dealt with the encroachment or assistance--depending on how one sees it--of technology in the courtroom.

Arizona v. Evans (the following is extracted from "Retooling Criminal Justice" by Justice G. Nicholson)

While technology is to be found within criminal justice, there is little evidence it has been welcomed as an enhancement to the process from beginning to end. The principal extent of technological implementation to this point has been automation of formerly manual functions. An example of this recently found its way to the United States Supreme Court in Arizona v. Evans.

Isaac Evans was summoned to appear before a justice of the peace, but failed to do so. The justice of the peace issued a warrant for Evans' arrest. The justice court informed the Maricopa County Sheriff's Department of the arrest warrant. The sheriff had automated the task of keeping track of arrest warrants, so Evans' arrest warrant was entered into the computer.

Six days after the justice of the peace issued the arrest warrant, Evans voluntarily appeared before a temporary justice of the peace. The arrest warrant was withdrawn when Evans was released on his own recognizance. Normally, the clerk of the court telephoned the sheriff's department to report the warrant was no longer in force, but no call was made in this case. The arrest warrant against Evans remained in the sheriff's computer system.

Seventeen days after the justice court withdrew the warrant, a Phoenix police officer stopped Evans for driving the wrong way on a one-way street. The officer had a computer terminal in his patrol car, so he checked for outstanding warrants on the sheriff's computer. The computer reported the warrant, so the officer arrested Evans and found marijuana in his possession.

The issue in Arizona v. Evans was whether the marijuana should be excluded as evidence. For years, based on the exclusionary rule, the courts have required evidence to be suppressed when peace officers err in making arrests and executing searches. The courts have rested the exclusionary rule on its desire to deter willful police misconduct. In Arizona v. Evans, Chief Justice William Rehnquist, writing for a seven-member majority, declined to extend the exclusionary rule to suppress evidence when a court clerk errs and, as a result, a faulty arrest and search turns up contraband. The court held that, when peace officers act in objective, reasonable reliance on records that are incorrect because of the error of a court clerk, not the error of law enforcement, evidence recovered incidentally may be used to prosecute.

That the task of keeping track of arrest warrants was automated at the sheriff's department had no real bearing on Arizona v. Evans. If the sheriff's department had kept the records manually, it still would not have reported to the officer that the arrest warrant against Evans had been withdrawn because the court clerk did not follow the normal procedure of notifying the sheriff's department by telephone of the withdrawal. The Supreme Court's majority opinion paid little attention to the minimal automation involved in the case and decided the case based on whether the error of a court clerk would require exclusion of evidence, although, in an aside, it blamed the problem on "computerization." In reality, it was a failure in communication between the court and the sheriff's department, not a computer error, that caused the problem.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, in a concurring opinion, expressed concern about how computers are being integrated into criminal justice: "In recent years, we have witnessed the advent of powerful, computer-based recordkeeping systems that facilitate arrests in ways that have never before been possible. The police, of course, are entitled to enjoy the substantial advantages this technology confers. They may not, however, rely on it blindly. With the benefits of more efficient law enforcement mechanisms comes the burden of corresponding constitutional responsibilities." While Justice O'Connor recognized the correctness of the majority's analysis, she felt sufficiently compelled to fire a shot across the government's bow: technology must be integrated responsibly.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, however, went further. In a dissenting opinion, she declared: "Widespread reliance on computers to store and convey information generates, along with manifold benefits, new possibilities of error, due to both computer malfunctions and operator mistakes." She continued: "Isaac Evans' arrest exemplifies the risks associated with computerization of arrest warrants." Despite her misapprehension of the cause of Evans' grief (lack of effective communication) and her apprehension of computerization, Justice Ginsburg recognized the inevitable expansion of technology in criminal justice: "In this electronic age, particularly with respect to recordkeeping, court personnel and police officers are not neatly compartmentalized actors. Instead, they serve together to carry out the State's information-gathering objectives. Whether particular records are maintained by the police or the courts should not be dispositive where a single computer database can answer all calls. Not only is it artificial to distinguish between court clerk and police clerk slips; in practice, it may be difficult to pinpoint whether one official, e.g., a police officer, caused the error to exist or to persist."

Justice Ginsburg's view appears to ignore the necessarily discrete functions of the courts and law enforcement. The court must create the information--the warrant. Law enforcement cannot perform this function. This is true whether or not computers are used. Law enforcement must then obtain the information from the court and must be able to rely on the court because law enforcement has no ability to create the information itself. Prohibiting reliance on the court prevents law enforcement from performing its function, that is, acting on the information. Instead of making peace officers responsible for the accuracy of court information, the system should be improved so that law enforcement can rely on the courts and their data.

Justice Ginsburg's reaction to the breakdown in communication between the court and law enforcement emphasizes the problems in improving criminal justice in the information age. Technology, although given no unified invitation, has invaded criminal justice, and will continue to do so at an increasingly rapid pace. How will the information be stored? Who will be responsible for its accuracy? How will it be accessed? And by whom? What will be the respective roles of the participants in criminal justice to integrate data storage and retrieval? The challenge is to improve criminal justice by coordinated technological integration.

Last Saturday's paper had an interesting article about a 1984 Olympic gold medal boxer, Meldrick Taylor, a welterweight. The story detailed Mr. Taylor's rise to glory as a boxer and his gradual fall, both in the ring and out, culminating in criminal charges now pending for insurance fraud.

Lots of people were quoted in the article, former opponents, handlers, announcers and other boxing commentators. What struck me, however, was the closing paragraph of the story. The portion that dealt with his recent bankruptcy. The source of that information - an "unidentified" computer database..

I can see it now. We are all accustomed to dealing with confidential sources, informants if you will. You in law enforcement usually strive to keep them secret, increasing their useable lifespan. Defense lawyers want to meet and cross examine them. People like me are often in the middle.

Very soon, perhaps, you'll be shielding the data base - the data base will have its own lawyer - perhaps another computer, trained in law. Data bases, it seems, are becoming so indispensable and perhaps reliable, that the press now cites them as anonymous yet authoritative sources.

The Tie that Binds Us (the Internet)
Few benefits of online interactivity are of such potential importance, or are so often overlooked, as the Internet's promise for improving criminal justice technology integration. Personal computers hooked to interactive secure socket layer networks will empower justice agencies to participate in a seamless exchange of information almost unheard of today. The Internet will bind and combine our agency databases into multi-agency databases and allow us to exchange information closing gaps that criminals often exploit. There are a few multi-agency Internet projects under development right now.

GTE Introduced a Web-Based Crime Fighting Tool to Help Law Enforcement Agencies Collaborate on Crime Fighting (The Bastille)

11:03 a.m. Oct 27, 1997 Eastern

ORLANDO, Fla.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Oct. 27, 1997--

The Bastille Service Takes Aim at Knocking Criminals and Gangs Off the Streets and Putting Them Behind Bars

Seeking to help law enforcement agencies put more criminals behind bars faster, GTE introduced The Bastille(SM), a Web-based service that offers a secure, private network for information sharing and real-time communication among officers of the law.

The service, available to all U.S. law enforcement agencies beginning Feb. 1, 1998, was unveiled to attendees at the 104th annual conference of the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP).

Featuring highly secure and encrypted databases accessible only by the law enforcement agencies that subscribe to The Bastille, the service helps officers of the law do more legwork in cyberspace, allowing them to cover more territory faster. Specifically, officers and detectives -- with the click of their computer mouse and a few keystrokes -- can use the Web-based tool to search or post information in the databases concerning:

-- criminal activity, gang watch and drug watch

-- "most wanted" suspects

-- missing or abducted children alerts

-- sex offender release notifications

-- criminal or missing persons photos

-- "hot spot" neighborhood maps

Named after the famous former state prison in Paris, France, The Bastille will use the Internet to "virtually unify our nation's law enforcement efforts in the growing war against drugs, and delivers a cyber-knockout punch to criminals and gangs," said Dan Jensen, vice president/general manager of GTE Enterprise Solutions, a unit of GTE Corp.

Six-Month Trial To Involve A Dozen North Texas Law Enforcement Agencies .
In November, a dozen North Texas law enforcement agencies including county sheriff's offices, department of public safety and large police departments will begin using The Bastille as part of a six-month free trial. Throughout the trial, the agencies will provide feedback to GTE to ensure that the database modules are customized to meet the specific needs of the agencies.

"We are looking forward to using this 21st century crime fighting tool," said Detective David Wilson of the Irving, Texas, Police Department. "The Bastille will provide a new avenue for our department to work in tandem with other law enforcement agencies in a collaborative, effective way."

Because crime has no boundaries, law enforcement agencies, regardless of where they are located, will be able to outwit criminals by using The Bastille to exchange vital historical and late-breaking case data in their quest to improve the quality of life in the communities they serve, according to GTE's Jensen.

"The Bastille gives law enforcement officers a secure forum to exchange information with individuals, specific groups or other agencies through information broadcasts, agency and crime-specific news groups, officer-to-officer e-mail and remote mobile access," said Dave Watkins, general manager-law enforcement services for GTE Enterprise Solutions.

Combining the speed of modern telecommunications technology, advanced, encrypted data transmission service, firewall technology and smart-card reader hardware, plus easy-to-use browser software to navigate through the databases, The Bastille can help anyone in a law enforcement agency become an expert "cybercop," according to GTE.

Using The Bastille, officers and detectives will be able to securely view a variety of crime-fighting information including photo lineups of suspects, mugshots and surveillance videos. The service will be particularly helpful in solving cross-jurisdictional crimes.

With the mapping capabilities of The Bastille, for instance, officers can quickly narrow their suspect list by graphically zeroing in on a crime zone, then overlapping a map of known offenders in that area.

"Since the content of The Bastille will be produced by law enforcement agencies, the service will be of greatest benefit as more and more agencies subscribe to the service, broadening the base of case information that is stored in the databases," said Watkins.

Crime Fighting Service Aided By Advanced Technology
To deliver the web-based crime fighting tool to law enforcement agencies coast to coast, GTE has teamed up with five companies that each bring specific technological benefits: Web serving platform on which the Bastille operates. GTE uses Silicon Graphics' WebFORCE(R) Origin 2000(TM) and Origin200(TM) servers. technology from which all the crime fighting data, such as images, text, documents and mapping capabilities will be utilized. enterprise storage capabilities. GTE uses EMC's Symmetrix solution to provide users with data such as photos and graphical images. CyberGuard's highly secured, encryption services that only allows entry to subscribers. By February, The Bastille will also include GTE CyberTrust(TM) digital certificates and certification authority (CA) services to further strengthen the system. encrypted virtual private network. SafeNet works in tandem with CyberGuard security services to create highly secure network available only to subscribers. (for more information http://www.gte.com )

A second similar Internet technology project is being developed in Florida. (see Web fights crime; Researchers help police forces build systems to share data, by Ben Elgin)
On paper, intranet technology would seem like a cure-all for law enforcement agencies. Departments could access one another's criminal records and case histories to generate instant leads and suspect lists while eliminating the jurisdictional loopholes often exploited by criminals.

SLOW DEPLOYMENT
However, intranet deployment across multiple police departments, especially at the local level, has been slow-if not nonexistent-because detectives and narcotics agents are hesitant to trust a technology that many of them don't understand.

Despite the high stakes, seven western Florida police departments are challenging law enforcement's technophobia as they put the finishing touches on an intranet that shares police reports, paperwork on 100,000 past and present cases, wiretap transcripts, court depositions, and photographed evidence. Dubbed the West Florida Counterdrug Investigation Network (WFCIN), the $1.5 million, government-funded system is scheduled to go live by early February, says Detective Leonard Leedy of St. Petersburg, FL.

TROUBLE-SHOOTING SECURITY PROBLEMS
While WFCIN employs fairly standard intranet functions, security measures are severe, and troubleshooting sessions have been relentless, says Sage Jackson, a programmer with the University of Tennessee, which has consulted on the project's technical side.

Netscape's Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) protocol is used in conjunction with Navigator 3.0 to provide a level of external security, but the biggest challenge lies in safeguarding the network from internal security threats.

"Ninety percent of all security leaks come from within," says Captain Dan Wiggins, Pinellas County Sheriff's Office (Largo, FL). Underscoring this dilemma is the premise that seven different departments could become vulnerable if just one networked cop went bad.

The University of Tennessee responded by developing a client-side plug-in that appears as a standard search field to the user. Instead of sending out one standard query to each of the seven intranet servers, the plug-in issues seven independent queries, garners the results, and repackages them to appear as a single query result.

This grants users an easy search format, while guaranteeing that no system administrator gains unchecked access to another department's database. Nondepartment visitors can only search areas that each particular department deems appropriate through an array of permissions, user groups and passwords.

THE CRIME NETWORK
WFCIN proponents say that narcotics agents will eventually embrace the network and its advantages, especially the potential for lead generation through crime association.

For example, if a St. Petersburg narcotics agent makes a drug bust where cocaine is hidden in hollowed-out bolts, they can search seven different criminal databases for past crimes where a similar concealment method occurred. If dealers move a couple of counties away to escape police observation, their criminal pasts will be readily available to the normally unsuspecting police.

What else is going on in California? Starting about a year ago, using state funds, our California Department of Corrections embarked upon a project known as Parole Leads. This program, which hinges on the internet, was recently the recipient of a national award for excellence and innovative uses of technology.

Parole Leads is an internet program that lists a variety of information about individuals currently on parole in California. In terms of numbers, our daily average number of parolees is close to 105,000 individuals.

The Parole Leads program is a secure system, containing both multiple firewalls and incription software. It is available to law enforcement agencies for a modest subscription fee and is now fully deployable, having been successfully piloted during the last year.

The system is designed to aid local law enforcement with the detection of parolees and to enhance their crime solving capabilities. Through the system, local law enforcement can obtain the most recent photo of every California parolee, match the thumb print of the person being detained with the information available through the system and secure a host of information about the parolee, including aliases, gang affiliations, tattoos, known associates and related information of critical importance to law enforcement.

The system will eventually replace the hard-copy listings of parolees published by the States Department of Justice and, through the convenience and efficiencies offered by the internet, be updated far more frequently than was ever possible in the paper-driven version.

This handful of projects is simply illustrative of the myriad of projects that are underway around this country. Also, it is noteworthy that such projects are not being done from scratch, in a vacuum. One of the most encouraging aspects of technology development is the growing willingness of public agencies to learn from the experiences of other agencies and to not be continuously re-inventing the wheel.

As an example, the electronic filing of documents with the court system, whether by lawyers, litigants or even by law enforcement (traffic citations for instance) is being vigorously explored in many locations, both here and abroad.

Why pursue electronic filing? A multitude of reasons. It reduces the vast amount of paper that threatens to bury us. It reduces the storage and retention costs that come with the paper record. It reduces redundancy in operations - which in turn decreases the risk of errors in data entry. It's faster, cheaper and more reliable. Our customers (the public) want it. Moreover, the public is getting used to it. The Internet has dramatically impacted the way the public expect to be serviced.

Go to a major gas station and take a look at how few people use anything other than electronic modes of payment. Cash is becoming downright dinosauric - some retail clerks verge on being offended when confronted with it.

When the California Court Technology Committee set out to explore and establish standards to govern electronic filing, we found that the federal court system, through the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, had just completed a comprehensive analysis of this issue and had already proposed extensive technical standards.

As a result, the work of our committee was brief - yet meaningful. The standards are on their way to being formally adopted, months ahead of the original schedule.

The point is not just the obvious - don't waste time and duplicate efforts. The importance in the realm of technology is that standards help to ensure the ready transfer and sharing of data between the branches of government, and within agencies with the same branch. Absent the ability to share the data, the net result will simply be a more efficient status quo - - with agencies still failing to communicate, failing to consider the enterprise as a whole, still working (albeit more efficiently) in relative isolation.

That is simply unacceptable. It is unacceptable to the taxpayers of this country. It is unacceptable to all victims of crime, be they corporate entities or private citizens. Our elected officials won't tolerate it and neither should you.

Our failure to capture the rapture of the net would be criminal.

WORKING AND LEARNING TOGETHER
I have just a few remaining comments.

The notion of law enforcement agencies working cooperatively together, across geographical or political boundaries is nothing new. The common elements of your purposes, regardless of whether you are city, county, state or federal employees, provides a bond that has served your profession well over the years.

The justice enterprise, consisting of all law enforcement agencies, the Department of Corrections, the probation departments, district attorneys, public defenders; family court services, all levels of the court system as well as the legislative and the executive branch of government need help. Your safety, as law enforcement officers, as well as the safety of our citizens, is dependent upon accurate information. Technology should be used to enhance our ability to make intelligent decisions, regardless of whether the information is used to safely effectuate a stop of a vehicle, to properly prosecute and sentence an offender or to consider reforms to our statutes or constitutions. All of us are negatively impacted by erroneous information and delay.

Conferences such as this one, devoted and tailored to law enforcement, are well-attended, well-received and highly praised. Your presence here today is an indicator of the seriousness with which you view the potential of the internet - and perhaps of equal importance, the appreciation for the clear reality that advancements will be made that dwarf the net. What are they? I have no idea, but perhaps in the days that follow, you will all obtain a clearer picture of not just the internet and intranets, but visions of the technologists as to what lies ahead.

It's time to look beyond the boundaries of law enforcement. It's time to consider both he contributions and the needs of each of your partners in the criminal justice enterprise.

Technology has the ability to obliterate the historical boundaries that have divided us. Boundaries that have prevented us from sharing information. Barriers that have deterred rather than promoted communication and cooperation. Today, we can share discrete portions of data without corrupting it or compromising our individual missions and responsibilities.

If you continue to hear from the naysayers that you can't do this, or can't do that, challenge the speaker. Demand an answer. If all you're getting is negative responses, check with other sources, including agencies that are similar to yours. Contact outside entities, including SEARCH before you toss in the towel and surrender to the ways of the past.

The United States Department of Justice, working with key leaders in the Justice Enterprise in California and other states is actively pursuing a global criminal justice information network. Its design and implications will be cataclysmic for the inattentive. You want to be part of this wave, not deluged by it.

The internet is one vehicle for bridging the historical chasms and repairing the system as a whole. This Conference is a dramatic and encouraging step in that direction. Through conferences such as this and with the continued spirit of cooperation that is becoming infectious, we can learn together how to use, manage and build on the net.

If that is our commitment, all segments of the justice enterprise can make progress. As a result, public safety can be enhanced and the integrity of the justice enterprise can be restored.

My thanks again to SEARCH for inviting me to join you this morning. Have a great two days in San Francisco.